Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: setting the number pins it, Coderbuds 'stops adjusting this team's standard from then on, including the automatic loosening,' and omitting target_lines reverts to the default. These are non-obvious consequences an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and its parameter before the rationale and alternatives. Some sentences verge on repetition and moralizing ('it is not yours to set or to talk them out of'), but each still carries actionable routing or precondition information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the missing piece — the side effects and when-not-to-use. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: target_lines is 'their number — tighter or looser,' conveying directional semantics, and it restates the omit-to-revert behavior as an intentional action. The repository parameter's binding purpose is left to the schema, keeping this just above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Set this team's pull request size standard.' The team-scoped framing and the contrast with recording overrides clearly separate it from siblings like record-change-fit-decision-tool and assess-change-fit-tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'You usually will not need this to make room,' explains the automatic loosening path, names recording overrides as 'the better path,' and gives the exact condition for using this tool ('when someone already knows the number and does not want to wait'). It also states the precondition 'Only call it when a person has actually asked.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.